







































Volume 02 Issue 11-2022 36 

                 

 
 

   
  
 

American Journal Of Philological Sciences   
(ISSN – 2771-2273) 
VOLUME 02 ISSUE 11  Pages: 36-47 

SJIF IMPACT FACTOR  (2022: 5. 445)  
OCLC – 1121105677    METADATA IF – 5.963 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Publisher: Oscar Publishing Services 

Servi 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT 

A phraseological unit is a linguistic unit consisting of two or more words which represents a particular figurative 

meaning, such as to flog a dead horse, as happy as Larry, to be snowed under. Nowadays, the cultural viewpoint and 

the structural and semantic analysis of phraseological units with a particular component has been in the limelight. In 

this article, a structural and semantic analysis of phraseological units consisting of anthroponomic components of 

English and Uzbek languages has thoroughly been given. 

 

KEYWORDS 

Anthroponomic phraseology, linguistic system, structural and semantic analysis, the plane of expression, the plane of 

content. 

INTRODUCTION

  Research Article 

 

THE STRUCTURAL AND SEMANTIC ANALYSIS OF THE ANTHROPONOMIC 

COMPONENT PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK 

LANGUAGES 
 

Submission Date: November 01, 2022, Accepted Date:  November 10, 2022,  

Published Date: November 18, 2022  

Crossref doi: https://doi.org/10.37547/ajps/Volume02Issue11-06 

 

 

G’oyibov Umarjon Alisher O’g’li 
Student Of Master’s Department, Uzbekistan State World Languages University, Uzbekistan 

 

Abdusamadov Zafarbek Nurmat O'g'li 
Scientific Supervisor, Phd On Philological Sciences, Uzbekistan State World Languages University, Uzbekistan 

  

 

Journal Website: 

https://theusajournals.

com/index.php/ajps 

Copyright: Original 

content from this work 

may be used under the 

terms of the creative 

commons attributes 

4.0 licence. 

 

https://doi.org/10.37547/ajps/Volume02Issue11-06
https://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?q=THE%20STRUCTURAL%20AND%20SEMANTIC%20ANALYSIS%20OF%20THE%20ANTHROPONOMIC%20COMPONENT%20PHRASEOLOGICAL%20UNITS%20IN%20ENGLISH%20AND%20UZBEK%20LANGUAGES
https://www.mendeley.com/search/?page=1&query=
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
https://theusajournals.com
https://doi.org/10.37547/ajps/Volume02Issue11-06
https://doi.org/10.37547/ajps/Volume02Issue11-06


Volume 02 Issue 11-2022 37 

                 

 
 

   
  
 

American Journal Of Philological Sciences   
(ISSN – 2771-2273) 
VOLUME 02 ISSUE 11  Pages: 36-47 

SJIF IMPACT FACTOR  (2022: 5. 445)  
OCLC – 1121105677    METADATA IF – 5.963 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Publisher: Oscar Publishing Services 

Servi 

The nature of anthroponomic component 

phraseological units in English and Uzbek languages as 

an integral part of the vocabulary stock is better 

realized through the discrimination of the two planes 

of language, particularly, the plane of content and the 

plane of expression. The content plane comprises the 

semantic elements contained in the phraseological 

units, whereas the expression plane comprises the 

formal or linguistic units of the phraseological units. 

Each component of the phraseological units presents a 

unity of form and meaning. The correspondence 

between these two planes is peculiar to English and 

Uzbek languages and is explained by the structural and 

semantic analysis of the phraseological units in these 

compared languages. 

First of all, the structural analysis of the anthroponomic 

component phraseological units is explained by the 

plane of expression and this analysis is realized through 

the ways of the constitution of proper names in 

phraseological units, through the viewpoint of 

morphological properties. 

As a result of his research, Abdusamadov Z. , claims 

that in the constitution of the anthroponomic 

component phraseological units in compared 

languages, such proper names as a first name, a 

surname or last name, a nickname and a patronym are 

extensively used. Particularly, such proper names as 

Adam, Jack, Jill, Tom, Ann, Jim, Cain, Betty, Dickens, 

Jane, John, Job, Peter, Mary, Nancy, Sam, Paul, 

Richard, Daniel, Robin, Charlie in English and Xizr, Ali, 

Vali, Iso, Sulaymon, Muso, Odam ato, Sattor, 

Muhammad, Eshmat, Toshmat, Masharif, Mirsharif, 

Hasan, Husan, Ahmad, Mahmud, Layli, Majnun in 

Uzbek are bright illustrations of the proper names in 

the constitution of anthroponomic constituent 

phraseological units. 

1) First name in English: Adam, Jack, Jill, Tom, 

Ann, Jim, Cain, Betty, Dickens, Jane, Sam, etc. 

Examples: 

Adam: “Adam’s ale”- water, the only drink available to 

Adam, “the old Adam”- the evil supposedly inherent in 

human nature lacking in grace, “Adam’s apple”- a 

bulge in the throat; 

Mary: “contrary Mary”- a girl or woman who often 

disagrees with other people or does the opposite of 

what other people want them to do, “little Mary”- 

stomach, “bloody Mary”- cocktail made from vodka, 

tomato juice and ice; 

Peter: “rob Peter to pay Paul”- to take from one merely 

to give to another, to discharge one debt by incurring 

another, “Peter out”- dwindle away to nothing. 

First name in Uzbek: Xizr, Ali, Vali, Iso, Sulaymon, Muso, 

Odam ato, Sattor, Muhammad, Ahmad, Mahmud, Layli, 

Majnun, etc. Examples: 

Ali and Vali: “aybni Ali qiladi, kaltakni Vali yeydi”- Ali is 

guilty, but Vali is beaten, “Alixo’ja- Xo’jaali”- it does not 

https://doi.org/10.37547/ajps/Volume02Issue11-06
https://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?q=THE%20STRUCTURAL%20AND%20SEMANTIC%20ANALYSIS%20OF%20THE%20ANTHROPONOMIC%20COMPONENT%20PHRASEOLOGICAL%20UNITS%20IN%20ENGLISH%20AND%20UZBEK%20LANGUAGES
https://www.mendeley.com/search/?page=1&query=
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps


Volume 02 Issue 11-2022 38 

                 

 
 

   
  
 

American Journal Of Philological Sciences   
(ISSN – 2771-2273) 
VOLUME 02 ISSUE 11  Pages: 36-47 

SJIF IMPACT FACTOR  (2022: 5. 445)  
OCLC – 1121105677    METADATA IF – 5.963 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Publisher: Oscar Publishing Services 

Servi 

matter, both are equal, “Alining o’chini Validan 

olmoq”- to take revenge on Vali instead of Ali; 

Layli and Majnun: “Majnun bo’lib qolmoq”- to fall 

madly in love with someone, “Layli va Majnun”- a 

couple who is desperately in love with each other; 

Sulaymon: “Sulaymon o’ldi, devlar qutuldi”- Suleyman 

died and ogres were released, “suv tilasang, 

Sulaymondan tila”- if you need to ask something, ask 

from the patron; 

2) Surname in English: Crichton, Cocker, 

Robinson, Hoyle, Hancock, Oakley, Woodser, Collins, 

Holmes, Henry, McCoy, etc. Examples: 

“The admirable Crichton”- educated, broad- horizon 

person, lettered husband, “According to Cocker”- 

right, reliable, correct, “Jack Johnson”- heavy shell, 

missile, “The real McCoy”- the genuine thing or person. 

There is no surname in anthroponomic component 

phraseological units in the Uzbek language. 

3) Nickname in English: Father Knickerbocker, 

Jack the Ripper, John Bull, Tom o’Bedlam, Namby- 

pamby, etc 

“Father Knickerbocker”- a descendant of the Dutch 

settlers of New York, “Jack the Ripper”- an 

unidentified murderer. 

There is no nickname in anthroponomic component 

phraseological units in the Uzbek language. 

Consequently, the usage of names in the forming of 

anthroponomic component phraseological units is a 

general phenomenon for both compared languages, 

whereas it is not encountered such proper names as 

surnames, nicknames and patronyms in the Uzbek 

language as compared to English. 

Furthermore, the structural analysis is also observed 

from the viewpoint of the morphological properties of 

the main components in anthroponomic component 

phraseological units in compared languages and can be 

classified into the following groups: 

1. Anthroponomic component phraseological 

units which include substantive property. For example, 

in English: “Johnny- come- lately”- a newcomer, a 

person who has just joined a group, “Uncle Sam”- the 

government of the US and, by extension, the American 

people, “Moaning Minnie”- a person who complains a 

lot. 

In Uzbek: “Hasan buvaning tayog’i”- everything 

remains as before, unchanged, “Bazmi Jamshid”- 

great, luxurious feast, “Aqli Salim”- a person who has a 

good judgement, a sensible person. 

2. Anthroponomic component phraseological 

units which include adjectival property. For example, in 

English: “Even Stevens”- equal between people, “As 

happy as Larry”- very happy indeed, “In like Flynn”- 

quickly and emphatically attractive or successful. 

https://doi.org/10.37547/ajps/Volume02Issue11-06
https://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?q=THE%20STRUCTURAL%20AND%20SEMANTIC%20ANALYSIS%20OF%20THE%20ANTHROPONOMIC%20COMPONENT%20PHRASEOLOGICAL%20UNITS%20IN%20ENGLISH%20AND%20UZBEK%20LANGUAGES
https://www.mendeley.com/search/?page=1&query=
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps


Volume 02 Issue 11-2022 39 

                 

 
 

   
  
 

American Journal Of Philological Sciences   
(ISSN – 2771-2273) 
VOLUME 02 ISSUE 11  Pages: 36-47 

SJIF IMPACT FACTOR  (2022: 5. 445)  
OCLC – 1121105677    METADATA IF – 5.963 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Publisher: Oscar Publishing Services 

Servi 

In Uzbek: “Amir Temurdan qolgan”- ancient, very old, 

“Odam Atodan qolgan”- as old as the world, “Xizr 

nazar solgan”- happy, blessed. 

3. Anthroponomic component phraseological 

units which include verbal property. For example, in 

English: “To take the Mickey out of somebody”- to 

make fun of somebody, “To live the life of Riley”- to live 

a really good life with few problems, “To rob Peter to 

pay Paul”- to discharge one debt by incurring another. 

In Uzbek: “Majnun bo’lib qolmoq”- to fall madly in love 

with someone, “Rustami doston bo’lmoq”- to be 

talked by many people for a long time, “Alining o’chini 

Validan olmoq”- to take revenge on Vali instead of Ali. 

4. Anthroponomic component phraseological 

units which include adverbial property. For example, in 

English: “Before you can say Jack Robinson”- in a very 

short amount of time, “Somewhere to the right of 

Genghis Khan”- holding the right wing views of 

extreme kind, “Rip Van Winkle”- behind the times and 

out of touch with what is happening now. 

In Uzbek: “O’laman Sattor”- absolutely not, never, 

“Daqqiyunusdan beri”- for a very long time, etc 

5. Anthroponomic component phraseological 

units which include interjectional property. For 

example, in English: “Oh, for the love of Pete!”- usually 

used in exasperation, “Home, James, and do not spare 

the horses!”- a clichéd way of telling the driver of a 

vehicle to start driving, “Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, 

Horatio!”- used as a meditation on the fragility of life. 

In Uzbek: “Muhammad payg’ambar madadkor 

bo’lsin!”- May prophet Muhammad bless you. 

Besides, there are such anthroponomic component 

phraseological units which include proverbs in 

compared languages. For example, in English: “All 

work and no play makes Jack a dull boy”- if a person 

does not take some time off work, they become bored. 

Particularly, the Uzbek language abounds in such 

proverbs which include personal names. Examples 

include: “Sog’ odamga Suqrotning keragi yo’q”- there 

is no need for Socrat for the healthy, “Eshmat ketib, 

Toshmat keldi”- leaving one, came another. 

With reference to the semantic analysis of the 

anthroponomic component phraseological units, it is 

explained by the plane of content. From the semantic 

point of view, phraseological units are integrally 

connected to human characteristics and activities 

(Maslova, 2001) . Moreover, phraseological units 

provide a useful source of information concerning a 

person, his appearance, his personality and his 

intellectual and creative capabilities. 

As a consequence of her investigation, Khudoyorova S. 

T . classified two notable semantic groups of 

phraseological units with personal names, including 

phraseological units directly related to personal 

character, behaviour and actions and those that 

https://doi.org/10.37547/ajps/Volume02Issue11-06
https://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?q=THE%20STRUCTURAL%20AND%20SEMANTIC%20ANALYSIS%20OF%20THE%20ANTHROPONOMIC%20COMPONENT%20PHRASEOLOGICAL%20UNITS%20IN%20ENGLISH%20AND%20UZBEK%20LANGUAGES
https://www.mendeley.com/search/?page=1&query=
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps


Volume 02 Issue 11-2022 40 

                 

 
 

   
  
 

American Journal Of Philological Sciences   
(ISSN – 2771-2273) 
VOLUME 02 ISSUE 11  Pages: 36-47 

SJIF IMPACT FACTOR  (2022: 5. 445)  
OCLC – 1121105677    METADATA IF – 5.963 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Publisher: Oscar Publishing Services 

Servi 

indicate things, situations and beverages. This 

classification is illustrated by the following examples: 

1. Phraseological units with anthroponyms 

associated with human traits, qualities and physical 

and psychological states. In English: “as happy as 

Larry”- very happy indeed, “smart Alec”- a conceited 

person who likes to show off how clever and 

knowledgeable they are, “good Samaritan”- 

somebody who helps another in need for 

compassionate motives and with no thought of 

reward. In Uzbek: “Aflotun miya”- very knowledgeable 

person, “ishni Ismat qiladi, lofni Toshmat uradi”- a 

person who boasts about himself while someone else 

does the work, “jonini Jabborga berib ishlaydigan”- a 

person who works hard, laborious. 

2. Phraseological units with anthroponyms which 

characterize another objects, situations and 

phenomena. In English “John Hancock”- a person’s 

signature, “the real McCoy”- the genuine thing, “Annie 

Oakley”- free ticket, free permit for the theatre. In 

Uzbek “bazmi Jamshid”- great, luxurious feast, 

“Laynini ko’rish uchun Majnunning ko’zi kerak”- beauty 

lies in lover’s eyes. 

Abdusamadov Z. N. conducted the research on the 

content plane of anthroponomic component 

phraseological units and, as a result, he asserts that the 

semantic features of the components with personal 

names can be realized through six criteria, such as the 

criterion of anthroponyms which deliver a general 

concept about a particular person, the criterion of 

anthroponyms with precise or imprecise meaning, the 

criterion of the functions of anthroponyms, the 

criterion of the origin of source, the criterion of the 

transference of meaning and the criterion of the 

coordination of the functional- semantic viewpoint of 

the anthroponomic component phraseological units in 

compared languages. Therefore, he classified the 

semantic features of anthroponomic component 

phraseological units according to those criteria and 

they are illustrated with bright examples in compared 

languages. 

1. The criterion of anthroponyms which deliver a 

general concept about a particular person. According 

to this criterion, the personal names are, in turn, 

subdivided into two subgroups: 

a) Those which can be a symbol and embody a 

general concept, such as Adam, Balaam, Solomon, 

Pandora, etc in English and Odam ato, Muso, Iso, Xizr 

in Uzbek: “Adam’s apple”- a bulge in the throat, 

“Balaam’s ass”- a silent, submissive person who 

suddenly spoke up, protested (English); “Isoning 

alamini Musodan olmoq”- the pain of Jesus taken from 

Moses, “Xizr nazar solgan”- happy, blessed (Uzbek); 

b) Those which cannot be a symbol and do not 

embody a general concept, such as Jack, John, Jimmy, 

etc in English and Ali, Vali, Sattor in Uzbek: “Jack in 

https://doi.org/10.37547/ajps/Volume02Issue11-06
https://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?q=THE%20STRUCTURAL%20AND%20SEMANTIC%20ANALYSIS%20OF%20THE%20ANTHROPONOMIC%20COMPONENT%20PHRASEOLOGICAL%20UNITS%20IN%20ENGLISH%20AND%20UZBEK%20LANGUAGES
https://www.mendeley.com/search/?page=1&query=
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps


Volume 02 Issue 11-2022 41 

                 

 
 

   
  
 

American Journal Of Philological Sciences   
(ISSN – 2771-2273) 
VOLUME 02 ISSUE 11  Pages: 36-47 

SJIF IMPACT FACTOR  (2022: 5. 445)  
OCLC – 1121105677    METADATA IF – 5.963 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Publisher: Oscar Publishing Services 

Servi 

office”- arrogant official, bureaucrat, “John Hancock”- 

a person’s signature (English); “aybni Ali qiladi, kaltakni 

Vali yeydi”- Ali is guilty but Vali is beaten; 

2. The criterion of anthroponyms with precise or 

imprecise meaning. According to this criterion, the 

meaning of anthroponyms develops and changes to 

the present day and some of the personal names still 

maintain their exact meaning, but the meaning of 

others tarnish. The personal names are, accordingly, 

subdivided into the following groups: 

a) Those with precise meaning, including Achilles, 

Cordelia, Job, Cain, etc in English and Xizr, Muso, Iso in 

Uzbek: “Achilles’ heel”- a person’s weak point, 

“Cordelia’s gift”- tiny and pleasant voice of woman 

(English); “ko’pda Xizr bor”- deeds done in harmony 

will always be blessed (Uzbek); 

b) Those with imprecise meaning, including Sally, 

Cassandra, David, etc in English and Ali, Vali, Sattor, etc 

in Uzbek: “aunt Sally”- a person who is a target for 

criticism, “Cassandra warnings”- a warning of 

impending disaster or prophesizes doom, usually 

unheeded (English); “Alining o’chini Validan olmoq”- to 

take revenge on Vali instead of Ali” (Uzbek); 

3. The criterion of the functions of 

anthroponyms. The personal names used in the 

anthroponomic component phraseological units in 

English and Uzbek languages perform various 

functions in the phraseological contexts, and they are 

subdivided into the following types: 

a) Anthroponym- dedications. To this group such 

names as Achilles (a Greek hero in Greek mythology) in 

English and Xizr (a prophet who found a life spring) in 

Uzbek belong: “Achilles’ heel” (English); “Xizr nazar 

qilgan” (Uzbek); 

b) Anthroponym- interpretations. To this group 

such names as Christ (a name given to the prophet 

Jesus), Cordelia (the only daughter of the King Lear) in 

English and Iso (the Arabian form of the name Jesus), 

Muso (the prophet of the Jew), Oppoqxo’ja (a sacred 

child who is born to the family of Khuja generation) in 

Uzbek belong: “For Christ’s sake”, “Cordelia’s gift” 

(English); “Isoning alamini Musodan olmoq”, 

“Oppoqxo’jam ursin” (Uzbek); 

c) Anthroponym- wishes. To this group such 

names as Peter (from Greek, meaning “a stone”), 

Robin (meaning “glory, honour”) in English and Sattor 

(meaning “forgiver, merciful”), Daqqiyunus (the 

oriental name of the Roman emperor Diokletian) in 

Uzbek belong: “to rob Peter to pay Paul”, “round 

Robin” (English); “O’laman Sattor”, “Daqqiyunusdan 

qolgan” (Uzbek); 

4. The criterion of the origin of source. From the 

viewpoint of origin, the personal names used in the 

anthroponym component phraseological units in 

https://doi.org/10.37547/ajps/Volume02Issue11-06
https://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?q=THE%20STRUCTURAL%20AND%20SEMANTIC%20ANALYSIS%20OF%20THE%20ANTHROPONOMIC%20COMPONENT%20PHRASEOLOGICAL%20UNITS%20IN%20ENGLISH%20AND%20UZBEK%20LANGUAGES
https://www.mendeley.com/search/?page=1&query=
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps


Volume 02 Issue 11-2022 42 

                 

 
 

   
  
 

American Journal Of Philological Sciences   
(ISSN – 2771-2273) 
VOLUME 02 ISSUE 11  Pages: 36-47 

SJIF IMPACT FACTOR  (2022: 5. 445)  
OCLC – 1121105677    METADATA IF – 5.963 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Publisher: Oscar Publishing Services 

Servi 

English and Uzbek languages can be classified into the 

following groups: 

a) Mythological anthroponyms. To this group 

such personal names as Pandora, Castor, Pollux, 

Croesus, Achilles, Hercules, Damos, Pythias, etc in 

English belong: “Pandora’s box”- a procedure that 

once begun generates many complicated problems, 

“Castor and Pollux”- candles that are fired at the end 

of the competition. However, there is no 

phraseological units which include mythological 

personal names in Uzbek. 

b) Religious anthroponyms. To this group such 

personal names as Adam, Balaam, Cain, Job, David, 

Jonathan, Jesus, etc in English and Odam ato, Iso, 

Muso, Xizr, Muhammad payg’ambar, in Uzbek belong: 

“as old as Adam”- ancient, very old, “the mark of Cain”- 

the stigma of murder, a sign of infamy (English); 

“Odam atodan qolgan”- very old, “Isoning alamini 

Musodan olmoq”- the pain of Jesus taken from Moses 

(Uzbek). 

c) Historical anthroponyms. To this group such 

personal names as Lucullus, Vandyke, Brummel, 

Hobson, Cocker, Crichton, etc in English and 

Daqqiyunus in Uzbek belong: “a banquet of Lucullus”- 

the abundance and sophistication of the table, many 

dishes, “Vandyke beard”- taken from the portrait of 

Van Dyke (English); “Daqqiyunusdan qolgan”- very old, 

ancient (Uzbek). 

d) Literary anthroponyms. To this group such 

personal names as Barkus, Billy Bunter, Fortunatus, 

Cordelia, Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde, John Barleycorn, 

Bountiful, Aladdin, Riley, etc in English and Nadirmat, 

Ali, Vali, Sattor, Oppoqxo’ja in Uzbek belong: “Barkus 

is willing”- somebody is willing to get married, “Billy 

Bunter”- a fictional fat boy, gluttonous, stout teenager 

(English); “tata- tat, usta Nadirmat”- nonsense, 

“Oppoqxo’jam ursin”- an expression of repentence 

(Uzbek). 

e) Daily anthroponyms. To this group such 

personal names as Annie Oakley, Sally, Gladstone, 

Teddy, Gallagher, Jack, etc in English belong: “Annie 

Oakley”- free ticket, free permit for the theatre, “aunt 

Sally”- a person who is a target for criticism. However, 

there is no phraseological units which include daily 

personal names in Uzbek. 

5. The criterion of the transference of meaning. 

According to this criterion, the personal names used in 

anthroponym component phraseological units in 

compared languages are divided into two types, 

including anthroponyms with direct meaning and 

those with indirect, metaphorical meaning. 

a) Anthroponyms with direct meaning used in 

phraseological units in English include “Jack the 

Ripper”- an unidentified murderer, “as patient as Job”- 

very patient indeed and in Uzbek include “Ali desa, Bali 

demoq”- to argue, to squabble. 

https://doi.org/10.37547/ajps/Volume02Issue11-06
https://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?q=THE%20STRUCTURAL%20AND%20SEMANTIC%20ANALYSIS%20OF%20THE%20ANTHROPONOMIC%20COMPONENT%20PHRASEOLOGICAL%20UNITS%20IN%20ENGLISH%20AND%20UZBEK%20LANGUAGES
https://www.mendeley.com/search/?page=1&query=
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps


Volume 02 Issue 11-2022 43 

                 

 
 

   
  
 

American Journal Of Philological Sciences   
(ISSN – 2771-2273) 
VOLUME 02 ISSUE 11  Pages: 36-47 

SJIF IMPACT FACTOR  (2022: 5. 445)  
OCLC – 1121105677    METADATA IF – 5.963 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Publisher: Oscar Publishing Services 

Servi 

b) Anthroponyms with indirect, metaphorical 

meaning used in phraseological units in English include 

“John Hancock”- a person’s signature, “Aladdin’s 

lamp”- a talisman that enables its owner to fulfil every 

desire and in Uzbek include “Xizr nazar qilgan”- 

blessed, very happy, “tata- tat, usta Nadirmat”- 

nonsense, a useless advice. 

6. The criterion of the coordination of the 

functional- semantic viewpoint of the anthroponomic 

component phraseological units in compared 

languages. According to this criterion, the relationship 

of anthroponym component phraseological units in 

compared languages from the functional- semantic 

viewpoint constitute as follows: 

a) Anthroponym component phraseological units 

have their absolute equivalence from the semantic 

viewpoint in both compared languages, such as “by 

George!”- an expression of surprise, “all my eye and 

Betty Martin”- nonsense in English and 

“Daqqiyunusdan qolgan”- ancient, very old, 

“Oppoqxo’jam ursin”- an expression of repentance, 

“tata- tat, usta Nadirmat”- nonsense in Uzbek. 

b) Anthroponym component phraseological units 

in one language do not have their equivalence in 

another language, such as “Herculean labour”- a heroic 

deed, “the thread of Ariadne”- solving a problem by 

multiple means in English and “Ali desa, Bali demoq”- 

to argue, to squabble, “Isoning alamini Musodan 

olmoq”- the pain of Jesus taken from Moses in Uzbek. 

Therefore, the classification of anthroponym 

component phraseological units from the semantic 

viewpoint in compared languages can be various and 

multi- faceted. The structural analysis of phraseological 

units with personal names is conducted according to 

morphological property and the semantic analysis of 

such units is implemented in relation with semantic 

property. 

In the process of the structural and semantic analysis 

of the anthroponym component phraseological units 

in English and Uzbek languages, it has been observed 

that both languages have several similarities and 

differences in this viewpoint of analysis. As 

Abdusamadov asserts, anthroponym component 

phraseological units in English and Uzbek languages 

have their own lexical- semantic and grammatical 

peculiarities and can be characterized with their 

isomorphic and allomorphic possibility in compared 

languages. 

First of all, from the structural viewpoint, 

phraseological units with personal names in compared 

languages have the following similarities: 

1. First names are mostly used in phraseological 

units in both languages, such as Adam, Jack, Jill, Tom, 

Ann, Jim, etc. in English and Xizr, Ali, Vali, Iso, 

https://doi.org/10.37547/ajps/Volume02Issue11-06
https://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?q=THE%20STRUCTURAL%20AND%20SEMANTIC%20ANALYSIS%20OF%20THE%20ANTHROPONOMIC%20COMPONENT%20PHRASEOLOGICAL%20UNITS%20IN%20ENGLISH%20AND%20UZBEK%20LANGUAGES
https://www.mendeley.com/search/?page=1&query=
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps


Volume 02 Issue 11-2022 44 

                 

 
 

   
  
 

American Journal Of Philological Sciences   
(ISSN – 2771-2273) 
VOLUME 02 ISSUE 11  Pages: 36-47 

SJIF IMPACT FACTOR  (2022: 5. 445)  
OCLC – 1121105677    METADATA IF – 5.963 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Publisher: Oscar Publishing Services 

Servi 

Sulaymon, Muso, Odam ato, Sattor, Muhammad, 

Eshmat, Toshmat, Layli, Majnun, etc.in Uzbek. 

2. Both languages have the same substantive, 

adjectival, verbal, adverbial and interjectional 

properties from the morphological viewpoint, 

including “Uncle Sam” (substantive), “as rich as 

Croesus” (adjectival), “to rob Peter to pay Paul” 

(verbal), “before you can say Jack Robinson” 

(adverbial), “Even blind Freddy could see it!” 

(interjectional) in English and “bazmi Jamshid” 

(substantive), “baloyi Azim” (adjectival), “Rustami 

doston bo’lmoq” (verbal), “Daqqiyunusdan beri” 

(adverbial), “Muhammad payg’ambar madadkor 

bo’lsin!” (interjectional) in Uzbek. 

3. In substantive phraseological units with 

personal names, both languages have phraseological 

units with the same two components, such as “Annie 

Oakley” in English and “bazmi Jamshid” in Uzbek, and 

the same three and more components, including 

“Darby and Joan” in English and “Hasan buvaning 

tayog’i” in Uzbek. 

4. In substantive phraseological units with 

personal names, both languages have the same 

phraseological units in possessive case from the 

viewpoint of syntagmatic relation, such as “Cordelia’s 

gift” in English and “Hasan buvaning tayog’i” in Uzbek. 

5. Both languages have the same phraseological 

units with couple personal names, such as “Darby and 

Joan”, “David and Jonathan”, “Castor and Pollux”, Dr. 

Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” in English and “ishni qilar 

Masharif, mushtni yeydi Mirsharif”, “aql- Hasan, odob- 

Husan”, “Alining o’chini Validan olmoq” in Uzbek. 

6. Both languages have the same proverbs with 

personal names, such as “Caesar’s wife is above 

suspicion” in English and “Abdulhakim ovga chiqdi, 

orqasidan g’avg’o chiqdi in Uzbek. 

Moreover, from the structural viewpoint, 

phraseological units with personal names in compared 

languages have the following differences: 

1. Personal names with surnames, nicknames and 

a patronym are used in anthroponym component 

phraseological units in English, whereas there is no 

such kind of personal names in Uzbek. For instance, a 

surname is used in “the admirable Crichton”, a 

nickname is used in “Father Knickerbocker” and a 

patronym is used in “the cask of Danaides”. 

2. Articles and prepositions are widely used in 

English anthroponym component phraseological units, 

while six types of case affixes, such as nominative, 

genitive, accusative, dative, locative and ablative and 

auxiliary postpositions are frequently used in Uzbek 

phraseological units with personal names. Examples in 

English include “a banquet of Lucullus”, “as happy as 

Larry”, “to be between Scylla and Charybdis”, “since 

Adam was a boy” (articles and prepositions are used in 

all of them) and in Uzbek include “Sulaymon o’ldi, 

https://doi.org/10.37547/ajps/Volume02Issue11-06
https://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?q=THE%20STRUCTURAL%20AND%20SEMANTIC%20ANALYSIS%20OF%20THE%20ANTHROPONOMIC%20COMPONENT%20PHRASEOLOGICAL%20UNITS%20IN%20ENGLISH%20AND%20UZBEK%20LANGUAGES
https://www.mendeley.com/search/?page=1&query=
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps


Volume 02 Issue 11-2022 45 

                 

 
 

   
  
 

American Journal Of Philological Sciences   
(ISSN – 2771-2273) 
VOLUME 02 ISSUE 11  Pages: 36-47 

SJIF IMPACT FACTOR  (2022: 5. 445)  
OCLC – 1121105677    METADATA IF – 5.963 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Publisher: Oscar Publishing Services 

Servi 

devlar qutuldi” (in nominative case), “Alining o’chini 

Validan olmoq” (in genitive and ablative case), 

“Berdisini aytguncha belimni bukma” (in accusative 

case), “jonini Jabborga berib ishlamoq” (in dative 

case), “suv tilasang, Sulaymondan tila” (in ablative 

case), “Daqqiyunusdan beri” (in ablative case and 

auxiliary postposition). 

3. The usage of definite and indefinite articles in 

anthroponym component phraseological units is also 

peculiar to English and they are not usually used in 

Uzbek. Examples include: “a beau Brummel”, “the 

Gordian knot”. 

4. In adjectival phraseological units with personal 

names, the pattern of comparison “as… as” is widely 

used in English, whereas there is no such kind of 

pattern in Uzbek adjectival phraseological units. 

Examples include: “as old as Adam”, “as rich as 

Croesus”. 

5. Anthroponym component phraseological units 

with the components consisting of only personal 

names are also peculiar to the English language, while 

there is no such kind of phraseological units in Uzbek. 

Examples include: “Sherlock Holmes”, “Peter Pan”, 

“Jack Johnson”. 

Secondly, from the semantic viewpoint, phraseological 

units with personal names in compared languages 

have the following similarities: 

1. As a result of Khudoyorova’s research, it can be 

claimed that both languages have the same 

phraseological units associated with human traits, 

qualities and physical and psychological states, such as 

“smart Alec” in English and “Aflotun miya” in Uzbek. 

Besides, there are such phraseological units 

characterizing another objects and phenomena in both 

languages, including “John Hancock” in English and 

“bazmi Jamshid” in Uzbek. 

2. According to Abdusamadov’s research on the 

semantic analysis of phraseological units with personal 

names in compared languages based on the six criteria, 

almost both languages have the same anthroponym 

component phraseological units pertaining to those six 

criteria, excluding mythological, religious and daily 

phraseological units with personal names in the 

criterion of origin of source. 

Furthermore, from the semantic viewpoint, 

phraseological units with personal names in compared 

languages have the following differences: 

1. As a result of Khudoyorova’s research, there 

are such anthroponym component phraseological 

units which contain items in connection with the 

prototype in English, while there are no such kind of 

phraseological units in Uzbek. Examples include “Big 

Ben”, “Joe Miller”, “Sally Lynn”, “Annie Oakley”. 

2. Based on Abdusamadov’s research, there are 

no mythological and daily phraseological units in 

https://doi.org/10.37547/ajps/Volume02Issue11-06
https://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?q=THE%20STRUCTURAL%20AND%20SEMANTIC%20ANALYSIS%20OF%20THE%20ANTHROPONOMIC%20COMPONENT%20PHRASEOLOGICAL%20UNITS%20IN%20ENGLISH%20AND%20UZBEK%20LANGUAGES
https://www.mendeley.com/search/?page=1&query=
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps


Volume 02 Issue 11-2022 46 

                 

 
 

   
  
 

American Journal Of Philological Sciences   
(ISSN – 2771-2273) 
VOLUME 02 ISSUE 11  Pages: 36-47 

SJIF IMPACT FACTOR  (2022: 5. 445)  
OCLC – 1121105677    METADATA IF – 5.963 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Publisher: Oscar Publishing Services 

Servi 

Uzbek, while the English language abounds in such 

kinds of phraseological unit in the criterion of origin of 

source. Examples include “Pandora’s box”, “Castor 

and Pollux” (mythological anthroponyms), “Annie 

Oakley”, “Teddy bear” (daily anthroponyms). 

3. From the viewpoint of the religious origin of 

source, personal names used in anthroponym 

component phraseological units in English originate 

from Christian religion, particularly from Bible, 

whereas those in Uzbek originate from Islamic religion, 

particularly, from Koran. Examples in English include 

“Balaam’s ass”, “as old as Adam”, “David and 

Jonathan” and in Uzbek include “Muhammad 

payg’ambar madadkor bo’lsin!”, “suv tilasang, 

Sulaymondan tila”. 

REFERENCES 

1. Abdusamadov Z. N. “National and cultural 

features of anthroponomic component 

phraseological units in English and Uzbek 

languages” dissertation for the defence of 

PhD, UzSWLU, Tashkent- 2022; 

2. Abdusamadov Z. N. (2021). National and 

cultural features of anthroponomic 

component phraseological units in English and 

Uzbek languages. Retrieved from 

https://eprajournals.com/IJMR/article/4645/do

wnload 

3. Ashurova D, Galiyeva M. “Cultural linguistics” 

textbook for Master’s department English 

linguistics, Tashkent- 2019; 

4. Begmatov E. A. “Explanation of Uzbek names”, 

Tashkent- 2016; 

5. Ergasheva G. “The comparative- typological 

investigation of the gender aspect of 

phraseologisms and proverbs in English and 

Uzbek languages” dissertation for the defense 

of PhD, Tashkent- 2011; 

6. Khudoyorova S. (2020). Semantic and 

etymological classification of English and 

Uzbek phraseological units with personal 

names. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 07 

(87), 227- 230. Retrieved from http://www.t-

science.org/arxivDOI/2020/07-87/07-87-47.html 

7. Kunin A. V. “Phraseology of modern English 

language”, Moscow- 1972; 

8. Maslova V. A. “Linguoculturology”, textbook 

for students of high education, Moscow- 2001; 

9. Radjabova M. (2019). Equivalence of 

phraseological units with onomastic 

components as the means expressing cross- 

cultural communication. Retrieved from 

http://journalofresearch.us/wp-

content/uploads/2019/08/314-321.pdf 

10. “Uzbek national proverbs” (Compiled by 

Mirzayev T., Musoqulov A., Sarimsoqov B.), 

Tashkent- 2005; 

https://doi.org/10.37547/ajps/Volume02Issue11-06
https://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?q=THE%20STRUCTURAL%20AND%20SEMANTIC%20ANALYSIS%20OF%20THE%20ANTHROPONOMIC%20COMPONENT%20PHRASEOLOGICAL%20UNITS%20IN%20ENGLISH%20AND%20UZBEK%20LANGUAGES
https://www.mendeley.com/search/?page=1&query=
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps


Volume 02 Issue 11-2022 47 

                 

 
 

   
  
 

American Journal Of Philological Sciences   
(ISSN – 2771-2273) 
VOLUME 02 ISSUE 11  Pages: 36-47 

SJIF IMPACT FACTOR  (2022: 5. 445)  
OCLC – 1121105677    METADATA IF – 5.963 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Publisher: Oscar Publishing Services 

Servi 

11. Choriyeva Z. O. “The semantic and grammatical 

features of the phraseological units in English 

and Uzbek languages”, dissertation for the 

defence of MA, Bukhara- 2013. 

https://doi.org/10.37547/ajps/Volume02Issue11-06
https://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?q=THE%20STRUCTURAL%20AND%20SEMANTIC%20ANALYSIS%20OF%20THE%20ANTHROPONOMIC%20COMPONENT%20PHRASEOLOGICAL%20UNITS%20IN%20ENGLISH%20AND%20UZBEK%20LANGUAGES
https://www.mendeley.com/search/?page=1&query=
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps

